A complaint from a worker who alleged she faced a decade of discrimination in her job at the Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia (ISSBC) will largely proceed to a full hearing after the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed only a few specific allegations.
The complaint asserts that the ISSBC failed to support her career development, underpaid her, and unfairly terminated her employment due to her advocacy for racialized immigrant and refugee women. It also claimed that white, Canadian-born workers were elevated to management roles while other racialized staff were held back.
The Tribunal denied the ISSBC’s broader request to dismiss the complaint in full, ruling that most of the claims warranted further examination at a hearing.
G.H., a Muslim woman born in Afghanistan, alleges she faced a decade of discrimination during her employment at the ISSBC, where she worked from 2004 to 2017. Her complaint centres on allegations of systemic bias tied to her gender, race, ancestry, place of origin, and religion, in violation of section 13 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal’s decision ruled that many of her allegations, including claims related to underpayment, lack of promotion, and wrongful termination, had a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to a full hearing.
White, Canadian-born workers promoted: Complaint
G.H.’s complaint outlines a work environment where she and other racialized staff were allegedly held back from advancement, while white employees, particularly those raised in Canada, were promoted to managerial positions. She claims this disparity, coupled with a lack of support and recognition from senior management, culminated in her termination in 2017 following a staff meeting where she raised concerns about racial power imbalances within the organization.
The ISSBC, along with individual respondents C.F., the Director of Settlement Services, and K.S., Associate Director of Settlement Services, denies all allegations of discrimination. They argue that G.H. was terminated due to insubordinate behaviour during the staff meeting, not because of her personal characteristics. The Tribunal was asked to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that she had “no reasonable prospect of proving that she was adversely impacted in her employment based on personal characteristics protected by the Code.”
In the decision, the Tribunal found there were “foundational issues of credibility” that needed to be addressed in a hearing. It noted that G.H. had presented evidence suggesting that racial and religious biases may have influenced the decisions made by ISSBC management, including C.F. and K.S. The decision highlighted that “issues of systemic discrimination” were at the core of the complaint, which required full exploration.
Three specific allegations dismissed
However, three of G.H.’s specific allegations were dismissed by the Tribunal. These included her claim that ISSBC had a duty to ensure she progressed in the workplace because of barriers she faces in the broader labour market, an allegation related to her underpayment between 2015 and 2017, and a claim that C.F. discriminated against her in relation to a volunteer opportunity after her termination.
On the question of the involvement of the individual respondents, the Tribunal ruled against dismissing the complaint against C.F. and K.S., noting their direct involvement in the decisions that form the basis of G.H.’s complaint. It was argued that both had played significant roles in shaping the course of her career at ISSBC and that their actions warranted further scrutiny at a hearing.
“There is evidence of personal animus towards her, including interpreting her conduct as disrespectful, insubordinate, and disloyal to the Society,” the Tribunal stated. It also rejected the argument that naming the individual respondents would complicate the proceedings, given that all parties are represented by the same counsel.
G.H.’s complaint will now proceed to a hearing, where both sides will present their full cases. The Tribunal’s role will be to assess whether her protected characteristics, including her race, gender, and religion, were a factor in the adverse impacts she alleges occurred during her employment at ISSBC.
For more information, see Habib v. The Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia and others, 2024 BCHRT 224 (CanLII).
